ValentineXavier

You've documented the points I was trying to make so well, I don't need to cite anything else. Most of what we get from Canada is tar, not oil as we normally think of it, and most of their reserves are those sands - once called tar, now called oil. Venezuela was once our greatest foreign supplier, and it has the largest reserves of "real" oil, that is the thick liquid most of us think of, when we think of oil. All of this is pretty esoteric, and doesn't make any real difference, except for the ecological concerns Miss W. has pointed out. If there were no additional ecological concerns, I'd be 100% happy that we get most of our oil, and oil-like imports from our good buddies in Canada. Also, once Chavez got in office, Venezuelan oil production dropped a lot. That's probably one of the reasons we supported the (failed) coup against him. The only good thing I can say about Chavez is that he actually has elections, and wins them. So, he isn't really a dictator - yet. Early on, he looked good, to me, and to many Venezolanos, because of his support for the poor. But, his increasing control over the government, business, the press, all VERY bad. I guess I just like tweeking those who think he is a devil a little bit, by pointing out that they supply us with a substantial amount of oil, even if not the most. I think my unctuous arguments have gone on long enough, so I'll retire from this debate.

There are lots of French films I like. I just mentioned a few, with some that I thought Fred might like.

> {quote:title=ziggyelman wrote:}{quote} > As for Oil...sometimes google is your friend... Check some more google hits, and you'll get some different answers... It's true that the US oil co.s already have the drilling rights to poduce way more oil than they do now, without more deep offshore drilling, or drilling in ANWAR. But, that is like a savings account to them, so they don't drill there, but keep asking for the rights to drill in other areas in the US. Personally, I'd rather use up the oil from other countries now, and save ours for us, when it gets scarce.

> {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote} > > If it's so "hard to pin down," how can you say that in the past Venezuela was "indisputably" the source of most U.S. imports? That sounds fairly "cut and dried." If it's so fungible and hard to pin down, how can you make any definitive statements about it? It's OK to be "cut and dried" when it's Venezuela that's #1, but if a source says it's a country other than Venezuela, then it's "not so cut and dried" and "hard to pin down"? There is an inconsistency among your own statements that suggests some sort of bias toward Venezuela, though not necessarily a political one. > > Robbie Well, back when every source I saw said Vene. was our main oil supplier, we were even more at odds with Hugo than we are now, so maybe it was all propaganda. I'm not a Hugo fan, but I lived there for a couple of years when I was a kid, long before Hugo. My dad was in the oil biz, so I grew up in the oil patch. I even read The Oil and Gas Journal regularly back then. If you check out the wikipedia, you will find several lists, with links to others, and none of them agree exactly. I might accept the USGS as being the best authority for the US, but not for the world. If most of your sources are Canadian, I would think that if it were possible to read the stats one way, or another, they would read them to favor their own country, as would ANY country. Again, I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that its complicated, and some organizations read it differently.

I liked it too. Very crazy, very funny, and based, to some extent, on real events. That just makes it funnier.

I think it had a lot to say.

> {quote:title=MovieProfessor wrote:}{quote} > While we're on the subject of colorizing Black & White film, the television Military Cable Channel has a series underway entitled, "World War Two In Color." Well, the series can be viewed as being sort of deceptive, because all that was done was the colorization of old Black & White documentary footage, shown for years on television! No actual color film from that time period of the War has been utilized. One has to wonder about whether or not it was really necessary to undergo this new means of documentation of historical world events! I haven't seen the series running on the Military channel, but, a few years back there was a series called WWII in Color on PBS, first in Europe (IIRC,) then the Pacific. They made quite a point of saying that all the film they showed was originally in color, most rarely seen, and some fairly recently found. It totaled 4-6 two hour shows, IIRC. It was very good. Much of the film was 16mm, some was 35mm. Most was in good shape. I am, of course, totally against colorizing anything. Supposedly Orson Welles' dying words were "Keep Ted Turner's crayolas off of my film!" (referring to Citizen Kane.) I agree strongly with those sentiments. B&W film was not composed for color, with its use of light and shadow, and can't be retrofitted.

> {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote} > I'm just going by what I hear on the news on TV. I've heard multiple times on different news programs on different channels that Canada is our #1 source of oil. You say "one list" has Venezuela as #1. How do you know this list is more accurate than the others? *And who gets to decide what is "real" oil--you?* Certainly not I. I was just pointing out that the situation is not as cut and dried as you portrayed it. And, it changes. Back at the start of the last Gulf War, Iraq was believed to have at least as much oil as Saudi, but there had been no exploration for years, so it wasn't certain. Not so long ago, Vene. was indisputably the source of most US imports. As soon as exports from Libya dropped, Saudi Arabia increased production to make up for it, but speculators drove up the prices anyway. Oil is a fungible commodity, and very political. Thus, it is as hard to pin down figuratively, as literally. And, the difference between oil and tar, which is basically what we get from oil sands, would be apparent to anyone. It is called "oil" because it is converted to oil, and used as we use oil. Some of us still call cans 'tin cans,' or 'tins,' but they haven't had any tin in them for many years. Edited by: ValentineXavier on Apr 4, 2011 1:14 AM

Of classic films, *King Kong* and *Captain Blood*. But, what I'd really like to have seen were some of the William Castle films where he did various tricks on the audience, or a John Waters film with smell-o-vision scratch-and-sniff cards.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > > The ending also implied that she would no longer want the mink coat and the nurse took it with her, but it wasn't clear if the nurse would keep it or store it for the lady. > That was her symbolically casting off the trappings of her super rich life. She had no interest in the coat. I took it that the nurse was being told that she could have the coat. In the real world, today, and probably then, the hospital wouldn't have allowed her to store, or keep it. > > This movie was odd. It kept implying that Bel Geddes wanted a lot of money, but she would be more happy with no money at all, She was a young girl who wanted out of her poor lifestyle, and also wanted love. She learned that wealth, without love, wasn't as good as a middle class life with a man she loved, and loved her back. And, of course, james jg is correct that losing the baby set her free. I liked the film. I think it sits right on the borderline between noir and melodrama. Great cinematography, too. Addendum: In case there is someone here who doesn't know it, Howard Hughes invented the rock bit used for drilling oil wells, and they all had to come from him. I think he just rented them, at least at first. So, I figure Ryan's name in the film - Ohrig - is an allusion to 'oil rig,' a link to HH. Edited by: ValentineXavier on Apr 4, 2011 1:19 AM

Not yet mentioned is Haskell Wexler. He was either the cinematographer, or DP, on lots of great films. He is probably best remembered for *Medium Cool*, but he did lots of films you know, like *Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?*, and *The Thomas Crown Affair*. My favorites are *The Loved One*, *One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest*, and *Bound for Glory*, which has one of the longest takes ever done with a Steadicam, not long after they were invented. Fred hates that one...

> {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote} > > I know Canada has the second largest oil reserve in the world and the U.S.'s #1 oil importer is Canada, with the second being Mexico. > Depends on whose figures you believe, and what you call oil. One list of estimated reserves by country has 1. Venezuela, 2. Saudi Arabia, and 3. Canada. Most of what we get from Canada isn't exactly oil, it's a degenerated, very thick sludge, made from oil sands, not the "light, sweet crude" (oxymoron if I ever heard one) from Venezuela, or Texas. Of 'real' oil, we import most from Venezuela. However, it's nice to know that unlike Hugo, Canada won't go wacky, and cut off the tap.

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote} > > > What's both fascinating and frustrating for me is *how much more Americans know about Mexico than Canada.* Even northern Americans pay a lot more thought and attention to their neighbours to the south than their neighbours to the north. And yet, I'm pretty sure that given the choice of living in either Canada or Mexico, most Americans would choose Canada. (Of course, you do have to learn how to cross country ski to get around in the 11 month winter. And we're very proud of our one university, especially its new faculty of beer study. ) Well, Mexico is cheaper and warmer than Canada, thus a good place to vacation. Besides, the Mexican border gives us a lot of trouble, thus gets more press. However, I will admit that we tend to take our neighbors to the north too much for granted. I'd hate to see you replicate Mexico's drug violence, but maybe if you could come up with a great alcoholic drink made with snow, we'd pay more attention.

> {quote:title=filmlover wrote:}{quote} > Whart's wrong with being a Canadian? Well, some of them drink a beverage made from the male offspring of small, underground dwelling mammals. It's called Molson's. But, the ones that drank Labatts, at least before Anheuser-Busch bought them out, are okay, I guess...

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote} > So you're wishing Doris a happy 89th birthday by saying she's irritating?t I didn't read that thread. I have no ill will towards her, I just don't care for her acting, or the sorts of parts she plays, and find them irritating. But, to still be around at 89 is an accomplishment, irritating or otherwise. My maternal grandmother's maiden name was Doris Day. She was born in 1901, and died at 89. But, that has nothing to do with my feelings for her namesake. My GM used to kid that Doris Day was named after her.

> {quote:title=casablancalover wrote:}{quote} > > In Titanic, during the sinking how does one keep going below decks several times and not succumbing to the cold water? To build the drama, apparently. Or, because the drama in *Titanic* is all wet.

> {quote:title=nitratefiend wrote:}{quote} > Given the terrible slaughter that both sides experienced, there many great ghost stories associated with the War -- entire armies of the dead marching through towns in the night and so forth. But does anyone know of any good scary movies that have been based on these tales? Well, there is the Herschel Gordon Lewis film, *2,000 Maniacs*, but that's probably not exactly what you are looking for.

It's far from a great film, but I enjoy it. You probably had to live in the 60s, as I did, to be amused by the 'straight guy meets hippie chick and gets freaky' thing.

Last time they played it, it was in OAR, and I have it on disc. I'm surprised to hear it was 4x3.

If, after he had almost died, ET could levitate himself, and several kids and bicycles, at the end of the movie, why did he have to crawl through the forest floor/leaves, when he was in good health, and his ship was about to take off at the beginning of the movie? Why not just levitate then, and spare us the stinker movie?

The top of my irritant list includes the already mentioned Hepburn, Wayne, Sinatra, and Temple. I see that many of my favorite actors and actresses irritate others... Other major (personal) irritants I didn't see listed: Doris Day Liza Minnelli John Travolting Richard Benjamin

> {quote:title=jbh wrote:}{quote} > Does it ever cross anyone's mind that we watch a lot of dead people? When I watched old films as a kid, when I would see pets, like cats and dogs, I would always think that sadly, they must be dead by now.

> {quote:title=JonasEB wrote:}{quote} > I remember someone here posted that they went to see a film on a double bill with The Rocky Horror Picture show. The film that they wanted to see played first and the Rocky Horror people would not shut up. This poster actually had to berate them for ruining the movie he wanted to see. Apparently, it worked in his case and they did shut up for most of the film. That poster would be me. I quite agree with you about *Johnny Guitar* and *Shock Corridor*. They are both bizarre, but neither was intended to be camp, even if *JG* is so considered today. *Shock Corridor* is much like an off-off Broadway stage play of the 60s, shocking, and symbolic. I think it is my favorite Sam Fuller film, even though it is very different from the style of most of his films, which I also love.

Putney Swope Seaweedhead Greaser Spitunia All names in *Dr. Strangelove*, and yes, all Grocho's names, and all W. C. Fields' names. addendum: Lots of great names in Monty Python films... some I probably shouldn't cite here. Edited by: ValentineXavier on Apr 3, 2011 2:19 AM

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > > Le quai des brumes (1938), looks like a good noir: > > > Maybe we can talk TCM into showing some old classic French films like this one. TCM has shown it, and some other Marcel Carne films as well. You probably wouldn't like some of my favorite French films, like *The Blood of a Poet*, 1930. Perhaps you should watch *Un Chien Andalou*, made in 1929 by Luis Bunuel, and Salvador Dali. Then, watch *Elevator to the Gallows*. It will make sense, if only by comparison... Seriously, the ones you listed that you do like are fine films. I think you might also like *Diabolique*, and possibly *The Beauty and the Beast*, 1946, as suggested by others. Did you see the recent *Rififi* ? I think it is quite good. Also, check out the 1960 film *Le Trou* (The Hole.) It is one hard*ssed prison film.